Does this article evince the slightest curiosity as to whether the asserted findings are true?

Or about whether 'truth' (at least scientific plausibility based on presented evidence) is relevant to how to justly treat the doctor for sharing these findings?

I admit his writing was a bit icky-coy in suggesting that semen is even better than chocolates: maybe as a metonomy for sex and orgasm it is, but do most women really care for the product itself?

I mean, even if the stuff improves their mood and all, I think it's mostly a male fantasy that women relish ejaculate in and of itself; that they just want to rub the stuff into their skin like Sharon Olds in that poem she--

By Vallentine`s day , the instapundit linked to an article about that. Vagina is esaily permeated and semen has about 20 chemichals including oxytocine. In the end it sais women like sex . What is wrong with that? Unless you are Andre Dworkin

There must be no difference between gays and lesbians and heterosexuals. They are, in all respects, just like you and me, except that they choose to sleep with people of the same sex, which otherwise has no effect on them whatsoever.

Suggest differently and they will come at you with everything they've got. Accuse you of harassment. You're "old guard", out-of-touch. They will make sure you are completely and absolutely sidelined from your profession. The authoritarian regime does not tolerate free speech, not even scientific speech, in this area. You may not contradict the only acceptable conclusion.

The linked NYT piece is completely bizarre. It never confronts the question of whether Dr. Greenfield's claim about semen is true, or might be true. Somewhere along the way it just assumes that it is false, and then later on makes the further assumption that this claim is somehow harassing toward women.

What punishment short of burning at the stake could atone for the male Doctor's speaking about good sex as if women need a man's participation. But isn't that a reason women need abortion all of the time. I am confused.

". . . to investigate the effect of the condom on gender relationships: perhaps nature had endowed women with a need for regular injections of male hormones via semen: perhaps there was a positive correlation between higher levels of PMT and condom use? Perhaps the current growing estrangement--as President Putin put it-- between the genders in Russia was down to the increased use of condoms, now that abortion was no longer the nation's main contraceptive method? Sparkle would reject the idea as biologism but there was no denying this overwhelming feeling, . . ." (p 103)

I tell people: you want to know what's really going on in the world, read Fay Weldon.

[NB: book published in Britain and internationally as "The Spa Decameron"; apparently the American audience was found too dense for 'Decameron.']

There is considerable evidence that the ferrous oxide in the semen of red haired men if ingested on a regular basis can cause the elimination of cellulitis. It is also associated with a weight loss ten to fifteen pounds on average. This research has been supressed by anti-ginger fanatics who feel it would undermine relations among the non gingers. Perhaps, it would. Don't let word of this go any further

Dr Lazarus Greenfield, the author of this editorial about the effects of semen on women, is the inventor of the Greenfield filter, a device which prevents blood clots from entering the lungs, which has doubtlessly saved thousands of lives. Yet, it's sad to think that if he doesn't go on to better things, his obit will probably first mention the semen study first.

Hey...has Ann decided to hell with her policy of no linking to NYT articles or has she discovered the javascript code that you can use in your Greasemonkey add-on on Firefox, to circumvent the pay wall?

The author of the article makes it fairly clear that this guy has been a mentor and advocate for women over his long, successful career.

From what is available to read, he didn't make any demeaning comments about women or lesbians. Maybe the comments were a bit of locker-room humor at the worst. In any event, it doesn't subscribe to the philosophy of putting women and gays on a pedestal of superiority and for that he is being driven out of his position.

As for the part about women not going into surgery because of the sexism? I'm sure it is true for some or at least a factor. But or the most part, I call bullshit. I know several female surgeons. In general, the life of a surgeon involves more pressure, longer hours and more physically demanding days (but with more money...and we know that women are so much more virtuous than men and are not drawn to money so much). Try balancing that type of career with pregnancy, child-rearing. The women that I know do it really well, but generally it is much more difficult for women then men.

The pouters that are wanting him to resign should be thankful that every once in a while they read something that might contradict their religion.

This item clearly belongs in the Journal of Irreproducible Results, not because it is or isn't sexist, but because there's more humor in it than is tolerable in a "reputable" medical journal. JIR values humor, sanguine or choleric, bilious or phlegmatic. Scientific validity is optional, and not required to meet editorial standards.

So this Colleen Brophy checked the research and decided she could tell it was wrong

“I’ve gone back and reviewed the science, and it’s erroneous,” she said.

Has she published this critical work? Has anyone?

Obviously, she needs to have the original work be wrong or her shock and dismay can't be justified. But where is the evidence that the original work is 'erroneous'? What did she check? What was wrong with it?

Wow, this is unprecedented. I actually believe this is probable evidence I have had a significant effect on something. For ever since Gordon Gallup came up with the theory that the groove ventral to the glans of the penis exists so competitor sperm can be removed by getting caught in the groove and did tests to see how circumcision affects the matter, it has seemed most probable to me that he has been influenced by my writings. For one of the theories I throw out in my free internet book, Exact Morality for Today, is that lesbianism (or females getting off on other females, at any rate), has to do with females wanting sperm that is effective at enduring going back-and-forth between different females as a result of getting trapped on the penis (which trapping I mention probably is encouraged by the foreskin). Females would be expected to like the idea of intraejaculate sperm selection selecting for sperm that have evolved to prosper under such back-and-forth conditions, because such sperm would presumably tend to have ancestral DNA wanted by scads of females, which of course is what females would be expected to want.

My anti-sodomy page, wherein I argue that semen likely contains chemicals that can have addictive effects when introduced into the digestive system predates his study about semen being an anti-depressant during sex, and given that he also came up with a notion that sperm getting trapped on the penis is significant, probably, I figure, I was important inspiration for both those hypotheses. So am I mad at him for not having received recognition? Nope. No way on God's green earth I would try to publish my anti-sodomy views in a journal. Were I to fight about socially important matters in a setting like a journal that disallows common sense (or more precisely, what Locke calls reflection), I'd be like one of those dumb generals who decides to fight the taunting enemy before he can bring his most powerful weapons, his great overpowering cannons, to bear. It would be the sort of battle mistake George Washington didn't make at Boston. And as for his views about semen getting trapped on the penis being important, well, his ideas are rather different from mine (supposedly, his experiments with artificial penises makes him think the foreskin actually discourages semen getting trapped, and I hadn't even thought of the groove ventral to the glans being of significant sperm-trapping signficance, which of course seems obvious in retrospect), and probably journals wouldn't have allowed him to reference my internet book, anyhow, it not having been sprinkled with pyxie dust from peer reviewers or whatever.

I have done some calculations about the extent a female would be expected to want intraejaculate sperm selection qua its effects merely on sperm fitness, which I wrote up mostly with idea of publishing it. (My book on this point is erroneous; the truth is long-term first-order benefits to the female on average exactly cancel the short-term harm.) But I could never find a journal it felt right to publish at given what I wanted my article to be, or maybe I just got lazy or something crazy or not-crazy made me change my mind or want to postpone publishing. Journals that are open access tend to charge authors to publish in them--the rot associated with that consideration makes me instinctively cringe.